Housing. How Do You Look at It and Not Go Crazy?

oztite on 16/10/2019 - 11:51

OK, so I found out my boss's boss recently sold a home in a prestigious suburb of Melbourne for about a $7 million profit over a 5 year period. He will pay zero capital gain tax on that profit. Adding income tax back in, you'd have to make approximately $3 million before tax per year to make the same amount of money during that period. That is equivalent to ridiculous amount of hard labour (like 100 hours a day), frugal living and ozbargaining for people like myself. And what did he do to earn that? Well, simply by living in pure luxury and being very close to the city and public transport, nice parks (maintained by all tax payers) and good schools.

My question is, how do you work hard and indeed ozbargain hard when this is the sad reality? What's the point? You'd never catch up. And this is not a one off "lotto" situation. You can apply this to all home owners within 25km of all major cities in all developed countries.

Financial

Comments

  • profar on 16/10/2019 - 11:57
    +43

    Maybe you shouldn't be envious of other people and play your own cards right with same laws and taxes in play for you !

    • oztite on 16/10/2019 - 12:27
      +13

      Same law does apply, and I see my counterparts being so happy (and almost bragging) about the fact that they've made $300k over the last 20 years on their property, not knowing in comparison they've gone backwards quite a fair bit. The difference between someone owning a $100k house and $1 million house 30 years ago was $900k. Now it's $9 million. In another 30 years it may be $90 million…

      • coin saver on 16/10/2019 - 13:18
        +3

        Totally correct i purchased a property when i was 18 for $36k and sold it 20yrs later for $189k did i make a profit? Not at all even if I invested the money in say shares or even super and only earned 10% it would have returned me $242,189.

        • raging on 16/10/2019 - 18:24

          You dont want to know the answer to that question

        • fozzie on 16/10/2019 - 19:17
          +21

          Did you live in the house? Then you didn’t have to put up with estate agents. That’s a massive bonus imo

        • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 22:48
          +19

          Along with what fozzie said, you also saved perhaps $200,000 in rental cost, after owners ongoing costs.
          So you are in fact way ahead. Happy days…

        • ozbjunkie on 17/10/2019 - 08:12
          +8

          Only earned 10%?

      • Zonty on 17/10/2019 - 01:52
        +12

        7 million in 5 year hum must be sitting on gold mine land. There is no chance someone make that much profit in housing market in 5 years. I am preety sure purchase price plus profit of 7 million it means propert was valued around 12 million to 15 million value was before 5 years. And none home is value that much unless it's not 1 home.( could be own whole building with many apartment)

        • cameldownunder on 17/10/2019 - 15:33

          One of those buying a property for 1.5 Mio, knowcking it down, rebuild new for 600K, "living in it" while rebuilding, selling for 2.5 Mio

          Apparently making 1 Mio Profit. More like 400K, less interest on the money while building up to the selling.

    • jmi on 17/10/2019 - 11:12
      +53

      Great. Another day, another tall poppy syndrome OZB post.

      Hey OP, read this:

      Comparison is the THIEF of joy

      The problem with you is that you want to have your cake and eat it. You don't see the endless slog, the fears of being made bankrupt, the worries of not getting payroll on time etc. that gets the person to where he/she is today.

      Like most people who suffer from tall poppy syndrome, you only see the results and fruits after years of hard work but you don't want to do the hard yards to get yourself into that position. You only think it's a short cut.

      Maybe you should go eat some humble pie, ask your boss's boss and find out what he did to make himself wealthy and learn from him. If you really want to be wealthy, learn and educate yourself. Don't be like the 99.99% of whiners out there who sit on their asses all day in the office and waste their evenings at home watching The Block or Masterchef, all the while expecting to be paid handsomely so as to afford multi-million dollar homes.

      • Rambo80 on 17/10/2019 - 11:56
        +1

        Spot on… :)

      • Ulysses31 on 17/10/2019 - 12:52
        +4

        Perfect.

        In a food chain view, I've battled hard at the bottom forever, making a crap wage, making all the mistakes paying the price at every step.

        Seeing all around me making a killing, living the dream. I was told plebs make more than my wage. And treated like the baby of the group.

        Clarity/truth kicked in, and we've blown past all but one couple. And who cares, right?! They do. We do not bring it up. There's a deep & dark silence from them.

        Dad always said, its simple… Make more or spend less. We've had to change gears a few times. Mostly spending nothing. But we're now very humble & very comfortable. That could mean we have 10 houses, or simply have a very low mortgage. You decide.

      • vindictus on 18/10/2019 - 05:46
        +13

        This is delightfully naive. Pointing out that some people have lucked their way into so much more than yourself isn't tall poppy syndrome. It's stupid sure, comparing yourself to people whose conditions you'll never have is a recipe for suffering sure, but it's not dragging them down. OP didn't insult them or whatever.

        And I wish people would come around to the fact that most wealthy people didn't exactly earn it. Like op points out, the labour hours involved in trying to make the same amount of money from just selling a house in the Australian market is staggering. You can work hard and do ludicrous hours but that will not guarantee you having the fortune of owning a property in the right place at the right time in the market.

        I'm not poor and don't covet these types either. I'm still right.

        • oztite on 18/10/2019 - 11:31
          +4

          Thank you. I have absolutely no problem with my boss's boss making (I believe) $1.5 million per year as a salary. He worked hard to get where he is, and he still works hard, and deserves to be paid well. What I don't understand is how his wife stays at their luxury home and probably makes more by just doing that (when taking into account 50% tax he pays on his salary) than him working his ass off?! How is the system fair?

          I know, comparing me to someone better is doomed…

          • mlbrooke on 19/10/2019 - 07:21
            +2

            @oztite: What do you mean "how is the system fair"? it is luck that we end up born in poverty or wealth, but it is determination and effort that breaks us from that and makes us successful (or not)……

            Is it "Fair"? absolutely, you make your own success within the limits you arbitrarily set for yourself. The greatest gift you could learn today (and many people have said this) is to focus on your own success and forget about jealousy and comparing yourself to someone in a completely different situation to you.

            • Handsoff on 19/10/2019 - 10:20
              +3

              @mlbrooke: This is directed at OP but carries on from your point - who told you life was supposed to be fair? If that is what you think life should be you've been set up to fail. In the time OP spent complaining how life is unfair another 1000 people have used that time to get ahead.

              • mlbrooke on 21/10/2019 - 07:47

                @Handsoff: how very true….. I brought a house last weekend. It was on the edge of me being ready to purchase but I took a chance that could have lost me the deposit ($60k plus)…….. Inside the week that it took me to secure financing the property I brought is worth 10-15% more than I paid. I took a chance, I went outside my comfort zone and I have done well (once).

                Minor compared to the above but the point being to me, this windfall is equally amazing because i don’t care about someone else’s $7 million.

        • ladis on 19/10/2019 - 11:37
          +1

          I guess the the tax free wealth creation is what irked OP.

      • Jackson on 19/10/2019 - 00:33
        +3

        This would only be good advice if we lived in a utopian meritocracy. It's amazing how many people think that is the case, as evidenced by the upvotes, when we so clearly don't. We are just taught that from an early age, and well to do people believe it because it affirms their right to have more, while poor people are convinced because they are either conned by the system or just want to live in hope.

        What are you going to tell this guy when he does find out the habits of rich people, then replicates them, and all he gets is broke?

        • Elfarol on 19/10/2019 - 08:53
          +3

          I agree, see survivorship bias. There are plenty of clever people who work hard and work smart and do not luck out. Those who made it think they did so just because of their hard work, but it's also the toss of the coin that matters - the world is not some simple merit algorithm.

          • mlbrooke on 21/10/2019 - 07:54

            @Elfarol: Rubbish, the clever people who do not succeed did not step not of their comfort zone and stay outside it enough to win……. If you keep trying you will be successful, this requires the persistence to keep going but also the intelligence to know when to change tactics.

            I am mid 40s, I had an amazing opportunity at 20 to earn a great salary and be a business owner of a very lucrative business, I failed (I thought, wow this opportunity will never come again), after another 3 years of basic working, I tried again and started my own business…… ultimately the business was not profitable enough, but what it did was propel me into a career that has travelled me around the world many times and now be Well into the top income bracket without finishing High school!

            Why, because I kept trying, luck got me an opprtunity but I had to make it work. Choose to believe or not, you are wrong and I will guarantee it, if you don’t believe me watch this:

            https://youtu.be/O4mN33w5Ftw

    • snook on 17/10/2019 - 22:29
      +8

      I so agree here. I live in a pretty bad 2 bed fibro house about 20-25kms from the city centre, but work close by (to home). House is dodgy as. The kitchen is nice but we got it second hand and made it work well. I like the space in the house. It's just right. I don't have to worry about it much. Not much to clean. Never touch the outside. I fix broken things and don't worry about the rest. I own the whole thing outright.

      I'm sure people think we are struggling but I've got a Porsche in the garage and own two rentals (with the bank of course). I could have a super nice house somewhere to put my Porsche in, but I don't want. I'm 58. Never had any huge business or won a lottery or made a deal. Just worked and saved and gone without. I'm not missing out on anything now that i'm here. We are comfortable enough to have whatever we want really, but we no longer want. We have enough. I will still buy second hand stuff whenever I can. It has way more value.

      My peers with nothing were the ones always buying new cars, while complaining to me that they couldn't get ahead enough to buy a house … hmm. I would tell them what to do and then, couple of years later … another new car.

      • Jackson on 19/10/2019 - 00:37
        +2

        This is a great story, and no one would doubt that you have done well, and you are clearly comfortable with where you are at. But OP is talking about how someone made 7M in 5 years tax free on their primary residence. You aren't even close to that's guys situation, which sounds more like how old money is entrenched in society

    • [Deactivated] on 18/10/2019 - 12:11
      +1

      That's some nice bootlicking chief

  • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 11:58
    +38

    Not everyone can be a boss' boss.

    There will always be a 0.0001%. Even in socialist countries except their 0.0001% are there because they literally took the money out of your pocket for their greater bronze statue good.

    Life is more than keeping up with the Jones'.

    • oztite on 16/10/2019 - 12:28
      -8

      That's what most people say, it's the 0.00001% but it is not. It is all home owners in the blue chip suburbs. It's actually quite a lot of people…

      • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 12:29
        +30

        Then you must be doing something wrong since everyone else is doing better.

        I'm not sure which one you're trying to emotionally relate with.

      • SydStrand on 16/10/2019 - 19:19
        +30

        People who own a <2050 postcode home are still a very small minority compared to greater Sydney. I imagine it to be similar to Melbourne.

        There are two ways people own these homes: they got in early, i.e. decades ago, when such properties were still somewhat achievable for upper middle class families, or they come from families of means and inherited the house, money, or leveraged the education and connections.

        That's just the unfair lottery of birth. You envy your boss's boss, but there are billions who happened to be born in the wrong country and would love your salary.

        • Emdawg on 16/10/2019 - 22:46
          +2

          Camperdown (postcode 2050): the line between the haves and the have nots

        • geoffs87 on 17/10/2019 - 00:26
          +1

          Sheesh lower north shore, home to some of the most expensive suburbs in Australia doesn’t even make your cut. We’re all between 2051 and 2099!

        • paul11 on 17/10/2019 - 10:50
          +5

          People who own a <2050 postcode home

          And this is the problem. Everyone wants to own a house in <2050 post code or live within 10-12 kms from the city. Why ? Becuase the government is sleeping and the politicians are not taking any action or not thinking about future growth due to their own vested interests.

          The solution is to develop more new cities. There is no shortage of land in Australia. The only shoratge is of Government's will and resolve.

          The government needs to think about spending on infrasturcture to create new cities, give tax breaks to companies who setup business away from city centers. Setup new SEZs (Special Economic Zones) etc.

          How many more people can Melbourne & Sydney handle ? Both cities are already full or I would say congested and choking.

        • cameldownunder on 17/10/2019 - 15:34

          and would love your salary

          Would love to live in your country.

        • billbro on 17/10/2019 - 22:24

          Pretty broad statement to make - unless you mean outright ownership, then obviously it has to be driven by either time or wealth.

          However, we've purchased in a <2050 postcode, free-standing house, standard inner west lot size, parking and we purchased recently and did not get in decades ago, we didn't inherit the house, money or connections.

          The closest bucket we would fall under is leveraging education, as we are both working professionals.

          • SydStrand on 18/10/2019 - 00:08
            +1

            @billbro: It is a generalisation. I grew up in one of these suburbs because my parents fall in the former category (i.e. bought decades ago), and their neighbour recently sold to a lovely couple… of surgeons (yes really). So all you need is to either be a boomer, inherit, or be in the top income bracket. For many people, those situations are equally impossible.

            So sure, it's possible to buy into the inner west in 2019 if you're a professional, frugal, with dual income. But then again, if you're talking about the blue chip suburbs OP is referring to (Rose Bay, Vaucluse, etc.), there's almost no way you're bootstrapping yourself into a fancy postcode without family help.

            Birth is a dice roll. It's nice just to have a family that nurtures and supports your education, but it'd be even nicer to directly inherit money and property. Conversely, if you happened to be born on Struggle Street to parents on welfare, the odds of buying a free-standing house in Vaucluse is like winning the lottery. OP is complaining about his boss who's the beneficiary of all those pre-built advantages of birth, but so are we. Billions of people in Africa and Asia would love the leisure time and disposable income to browse Ozbargain.

      • snook on 18/10/2019 - 12:06
        +6

        I grew up in the 60/70s. We were fairly poor. One mechanic tradie wage. We lived in the back of my Gran's house though so no mortgage. Blue chip in my Gran's days were any suburb AWAY from the water because the water stank.

        Had a close relative that was a legitimate millionaire. Had a Jag with a carphone. Mansion in the country, Mansion on the Water. They had minibikes and horses and swimming pools.

        I got to live that life too as a child. I didn't notice the divide. I didn't really understand about money I guess.

        What i can tell you though, is that those people were not happy. My mother wasn't happy either but she was just a cranky shit. Money is nothing in the big picture. Both families were fractured and destroyed and money played no part in that.

        You are what you are inside and what you make of that is what counts in life. Give up the envy man and just get on with your life and what you enjoy to do.

        • youknow on 19/10/2019 - 10:23
          +2

          Couldn't agree more. Also, I think I might be married to you're mother.

          • snook on 23/10/2019 - 17:15

            @youknow: she carked it years ago. It's probably my sister. I pity you man. Get away while you're still young enough to walk on your own.

      • Slo20 on 19/10/2019 - 17:47

        Why don’t you focus on the blue chip properties in WA that have sold at a huge loss over the last few years. There’s many houses in QLD that I’m aware of that have sold for millions below what the owners bought them for. Envy will slow you down.

    • MessyG on 16/10/2019 - 20:19
      +20

      Our Medicare is pretty damn socialist - ask any American what they think of our policies and they'll tell you we're dirty lefty socialists. Our left you might as well paint red and slap Mao masks on them. I'm so tired of hearing this socialist vs RWNJ garbage everyone goes on about online, it's just another Murdoch confected division to distract the populace away from what's happening around the traps.

      Rich people, regardless of political persuasion, make money off the poor. Avoiding taxes is just another damn flavour of it. Pitting the general populace against each other by creating an artificial left vs right divide just pulls your attention away from the fact that both 'sides' do it.

      OP you want to be rich, you don't get there by showing up to work everyday and grinding yourself into the ground. Wealth these days is built on the power of the relationships both in and out of work that you develop. You've got to hustle, not network. You've got to be your own best salesman, you've got to upskill, you've got to maintain those relationships. And that takes a lot of time and brainpower. And sacrifice. It may not even happen in your lifetime, it might be your kids or grandkids. There's some good books around on how to achieve it if that's what you really want.

      • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 20:55
        -1

        you don't get there by showing up to work everyday and grinding yourself into the ground. Wealth these days is built on the power of the relationships both in and out of work that you develop. You've got to hustle, not network. You've got to be your own best salesman, you've got to upskill, you've got to maintain those relationships. And that takes a lot of time and brainpower. And sacrifice. It may not even happen in your lifetime, it might be your kids or grandkids. There's some good books around on how to achieve it if that's what you really want.

        You've described how capitalism works. You're free to do what gives you the best value and outcome.

        In communism, it is based entirely on who you know. If you tried to leverage for position, chances are you'd be fighting against the state. Your station is life isn't determined by your efforts, it is based on what is decided by the party.

        Yes, we have some institutions which are highly socialised and many of us do not agree wholeheartedly but we are still erring on the side of capitalism. True, to the Americans, we're bloody socialists. I should know.

        It's funny how many people cannot see what capitalism affords them and either romanticizes socialism or denounces any difference between socialism and capitalism.

        They're vastly different. My grandfather died defending our family from the socialist party. I'd be damned if I thought that socialism and capitalism is just semantics.

        (Ps. Before anyone says that defending the family was unnecessary and all a scare tactic, a mass grave begs to differ.)

        • p1 ama on 17/10/2019 - 01:50
          +13

          It's funny how many people cannot see what capitalism affords them and either romanticizes socialism or denounces any difference between socialism and capitalism.

          I think you bring up a false dichotomy which is counter-productive and actually leads people to romantacise socialism (and I agree with you that this is not a good thing). There's been an increasingly prevalent trend of right-leaning people to call every policy they disagree with socialism and every person they disagree with socialists. It means that many bad things are attributed to "socialism" that have nothing to do with socialising certain services, and otherwise good policies are never given the light of day because they're labelled as "socialist".

          First, let's actually agree that every major country on Earth is capitalist (in that prices are set by a decentralised market), and also socialist (in that certain goods and services are socialised and paid for by the collective - roads, bridges, the army, fire department…etc.). So the question really isn't capitalism vs. socialism, but rather, what things are more efficiently provided by the state, what things are more efficiently provided by the individual; what markets should be unregulated, what markets should be regulated.

          Yes, there are crazy communists who want to socialise all means of production, and yes, there are also crazy libertarians who want to have completely unregulated markets and basically have no role for government. We know neither of those systems work and they're not what are being discussed, so what's the point of continuing to try and bring up the far fringes?

          It's worrying to me that the discussion of whether healthcare should be government run in the US is now overrun with comments on "socialised medicine" and how this is the gateway to the starvation and mass murders we saw under Stalin in the USSR. Come on. Even if you disagree with government run healthcare, it's crazy to suggest that this is even remotely true. The discussion has completely lost touch with the merits of who should be providing healthcare, who can do it more efficiently and what kind of system leads to better outcomes for individuals, better outcomes for businesses and the economics.

          In communism, it is based entirely on who you know. If you tried to leverage for position, chances are you'd be fighting against the state. Your station is life isn't determined by your efforts, it is based on what is decided by the party.

          Yes, this is true. But it's also equally true of certain "capitalist" countries. Just call corruption for what it is - it's not a phenomena unique to socialist countries. Plenty of non-socialist/communist countries around the world where being the son of some hotshot gets you places and you can change your lot in life by knowing the right people (and slipping money into the right places).

          • [Deactivated] on 17/10/2019 - 13:55

            @p1 ama:

            Yes, this is true. But it's also equally true of certain "capitalist" countries. Just call corruption for what it is - it's not a phenomena unique to socialist countries.

            There's a massive difference between corruptable and corrupted by design. In communism, the very fact that there is a need to elevate the common man to be the people's arbiter is sufficient to demonstrate how it is by design.

            Capitalist will generally oppose any socialist tendencies as socialism is malignant, ie. if left unchecked it grows and reaches a critical mass. Unlike capitalism which allows individuals to vote for individual agendas, socialism will always be centralized to the "greater good" which can generate a critical mass of followers.

            …"socialised medicine" and how this is the gateway to the starvation and mass murders we saw under Stalin in the USSR.

            Yes. That's absurdly stupid. Both sides of the argument are free to spout unsubstantiated opinions. I just wish capitalist proponents would be a little more selective with their arguments but hey, that's part and parcel of democracy - free speech.

            • p1 ama on 17/10/2019 - 20:15
              +2

              @[Deactivated]:

              Capitalist will generally oppose any socialist tendencies as socialism is malignant, ie. if left unchecked it grows and reaches a critical mass. Unlike capitalism which allows individuals to vote for individual agendas, socialism will always be centralized to the "greater good" which can generate a critical mass of followers.

              I know you have a medical background, but I find it strange that you treat socialist tendencies as some sort of malignant disease - I think that you can't have a proper capitalist economy without some level of socialised services.

              Look at the stock market - perfect example of a capitalist market, but the market infrastructure needs to exist and every time you make a trade, a fee is charged (similar to a tax) which contributes to the operation and infrastructure of the market which you can view as a common good used by all market participants. You can't have a market if people can't participate.

              Should the government be involved in producing cars and trucks, of course not, but what about services which actually grant people access to the free market and allow them to be capitalists? In my opinion, of course we should - services like healthcare and education allow society to build human capital, increase the efficiency of our workers so we can produce more, consume more, invest more, which is exactly the capitalist dream. Giving someone a proper education is much cheaper than paying them welfare for the rest of their life.

              I feel like this idea is lost on my ideologically right-wing friends. There's a difference between being pro-market and anti-regulation. If you are anti-regulation to the point of not wanting to regulate monopolies, can you really say that you're a capitalist? Isn't the whole idea of capitalism about competition and not letting any one entity get so big that they can squash anyone who tries to challenge them?

              • [Deactivated] on 17/10/2019 - 21:30
                +3

                @p1 ama: I don't see the ability/concept of regulating monopolies as inconsistent with capitalism.

                The reason why conservatives tend to be capitalist is because both concepts are rigid and well defined. Take for example monopolies - it is defined as a anti competitive behaviour by restricting supply. The actual enforcement may be difficult but the legislation is pretty clear and can be applied universally.

                The same cannot be said of socialist ideas. Take for example socialist healthcare - how do you define what should be socialized? At the moment, we have a panel of people dictate what is a socialized cost and what should be left to being elective. Don't even get me started on the intricate web of PBS, medicare and pharmacy licensing.

                Why should someone who wants a hip replacement have to wait years or even decades and someone who wants a hundreds of thousands of dollars for diabetes and associated diseases have instant access to medication?

                The degree of wastage and neglect that arises from socialized healthcare is absolutely disgraceful, and the degree of human discretion is just disgusting. Nobody should be given powers to decide who gets subsidized.

                I think that you can't have a proper capitalist economy without some level of socialised services.

                We're not in disagreement there.

                …strange that you treat socialist tendencies as some sort of malignant disease.

                Just like a malignant disease, if left unchallenged it takes over. If we allowed for more social policies and we move the status quo of taxation to 60% the following happens. Government treasury/budget increases and there is more incentive to have the "correct" party for your agenda. It is much easier to win large voting blocks and the easiest, most reliable way is promise of funding.

                Manufacture a voting block large enough and you can be a single issue party and win everytime.

                For the greater good!

                Once you have enough supporters, you don't even need funding. The fear of mob reprisals would be sufficient.

                Capitalism itself is self limiting. Everyone has their own agenda and these conflicts of interest fragments power. Combined with well defined limitations to control as first mentioned, this just leaves the weakness of capitalism to detection and enforcement.

                • p1 ama on 18/10/2019 - 01:28
                  +3

                  @[Deactivated]:

                  The actual enforcement may be difficult but the legislation is pretty clear and can be applied universally.

                  I'm an economist who used to work at the ACCC, and I disagree - not only is enforcement difficult, but even trying to identify monopolies that are problematic is difficult. Being a monopoly is not illegal, even being a monopoly and restricting supply is not illegal. There has to be some evidence of public harm for there to be some case for regulation.

                  Certain monopolies, e.g. energy suppliers, are highly regulated. Plenty of monopolies are not. Who decides which markets should be regulated? Of course, government agencies!

                  This is no different to your example with healthcare and why patient X has to wait and Y doesn't.

                  You can apply the same logic to plenty of other examples. If two people call the cops at the same time and they only have one patrol car, someone just has to lose.

                  The same cannot be said of socialist ideas. Take for example socialist healthcare - how do you define what should be socialized?

                  How do you choose which roads to build? Where to put a train station? Whether to build a library or a town hall? Which monopolies to regulate and crack down on?

                  These decisions have all have to be made. It's not an issue unique to healthcare and it's not an argument against government provided healthcare. It should be noted that government run healthcare does not take anything away. You are free to not use the government system.

                  The degree of wastage and neglect that arises from socialized healthcare is absolutely disgraceful, and the degree of human discretion is just disgusting. Nobody should be given powers to decide who gets subsidized.

                  So nobody should be given the powers to decide which areas to police either? Or maybe nobody should be given the powers to choose which bridges to build?

                  I'm all for getting rid of wastage and neglect.

                  Just like a malignant disease, if left unchallenged it takes over. If we allowed for more social policies and we move the status quo of taxation to 60% the following happens.

                  This is just Cold War era fear mongering.

                  We're a more free market economy today than ever before. Tax rates have largely gone down, silly antitrust regulations from the 1920s are gone, we have more free and open trade, governments have privatised plenty of things they shouldn't be involved in (QANTAS, Medibank, Telstra…etc.). There are literally zero successful socialist states (in the proper way socialism is defined, not the US "everyone is socialist" definition).

                  You literally have nothing to be afraid of.

      • MrBear on 17/10/2019 - 09:07
        +3

        Rich people, regardless of political persuasion, make money off the poor.

        Or by working hard, creating businesses and flourishing.

      • cameldownunder on 17/10/2019 - 15:36

        You have to be a putrid bastard, with no morale whatsoever, and ready to screw ANYONE ! Then you might become rich.

    • FareEvader on 16/10/2019 - 22:56

      Maybe I'm still young and naive… but I really want to keep up with the Joneses :(

      • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 22:59
        +3

        It's a passing phase. I call BS if someone says they've never felt the need.

  • one man clan on 16/10/2019 - 12:00
    +28

    There's something missing here - houses don't go up by $7m in 5 years unless they are worth tens of million to start with

    • poboy on 16/10/2019 - 13:50
      +6

      Especially as the top of the market was about 2 years ago.

      • brad1-8tsi on 16/10/2019 - 14:14
        +2

        Yep.
        Quite a few examples recently of trophy houses selling for less than the original purchase price. Even bigger loss when you take into account the money spent on renovations by a bored stay-at-home partner.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 18:09
      +9

      Yep, if the OP is correct, he’s talking about a $15-20m house purchase price to start off with. You don’t make $7m on a $3m house.

      • oztite on 16/10/2019 - 22:52
        -6

        Quick search online shows a 600sqm block in Toorak goes for $5-6 million. Looking on Google map, these blocks are tiny compare to adjacent blocks. I'd imagine a lot of houses in Syd and Melb would go for that price range, they are just not for sale that's all…

        • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 22:54
          +2

          There are plenty of houses in that price range. It's just an awful lot of money for a house. And $7m profit in a few years is almost unheard of.

        • SlickMick on 17/10/2019 - 17:30
          +1

          I wish I was around when they were giving away $1-2m with free houses so I could make a $7m profit off them

  • Numlock on 16/10/2019 - 12:14
    +38

    Be grateful for what you have.

    Wealth is just a material thing. It really does not make you happy unless that is what you strive for in life.
    I'm a renter in an expensive city with a average paying professional job. I just make do with what I have and cherish the small family moments. Couldn't be more happier.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 12:32
      +1

      You're no boss' boss.

      OP wants to be the boss' boss.

      He just needs the missing piece.

      1. Be a grunt.

      2. ???

      3. Be a boss' boss.

      4. Make $7m easy money.

    • oztite on 16/10/2019 - 12:39
      +5

      That's what I keep telling myself, money is not everything, I've got enough to be happy.
      But then if you break it down: would you go to work and do what you do if you don't get paid? Probably not. Therefore you go to work to be paid.
      Would you get a 50% paycut for what you do? No, therefore you value your time and you put a price on your time.
      Then when you find out your professional work is valued less than that of a man living in a luxury home due to the crazy rules of this capitalist society, and you start to get a little bit annoyed…

      • Numlock on 16/10/2019 - 12:50
        +9

        Then when you find out your professional work is valued less than that of a man living in a luxury home due to the crazy rules of this capitalist society, and you start to get a little bit annoyed

        All I can say is focus on your own life and think about those less fortunate than you. Look at the Kurds in Northern Syria for example. Those people have only known war for the last decade. That boss' boss is probably envious of those billionaire oil barons who eat $1000 dinners and fly around in private jets.

        • DeafMutePretender on 16/10/2019 - 18:31
          +3

          All I can say is focus on your own life and think about those less fortunate than you. Look at the Kurds in Northern Syria for example. Those people have only known war for the last decade. That boss' boss is probably envious of those billionaire oil barons who eat $1000 dinners and fly around in private jets.

          What would be your advice for the Kurds in Northern Syria? Think about those less fortunate than them? Look at the starving African kids for example. Those people have only known high infant mortality for the last century.

          • Numlock on 16/10/2019 - 19:43
            +1

            @DeafMutePretender:

            What would be your advice for the Kurds in Northern Syria?

            OP isn't starving or in a wartorn country.

          • monkeyfood on 17/10/2019 - 21:59
            +1

            @DeafMutePretender: Thats loser talk, like if you want to be successful you hang around with successful people not those less fortunate then you, thats capitalism thats how you win

            • DeafMutePretender on 18/10/2019 - 02:47

              @monkeyfood:

              Thats loser talk, like if you want to be successful you hang around with successful people not those less fortunate then you, thats capitalism thats how you win

              Why would successful people want to hang out with people less fortunate than them? Sometimes you need money to have the opportunity to hang out with successful people (EG. private school, golf clubs, cocktail parties etc)

      • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 14:26
        +6

        the crazy rules of this capitalist society

        It's not perfect but the rules are much simpler than a socialist society.

        People seem to forget that the alternative to a compromised outcome isn't a utopia. We could end up like Venezuela or some other socialist shit hole.

        • nfr on 16/10/2019 - 15:50
          +6

          Crony capitalism is a shit hole too, it was why people got so desperate that they were willing to try communism.

          • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 18:03
            +6

            @nfr: Crony anything is a shit hole. The word cronyism already implies corrupted.

            You can have crony communism too (which is kinda the only communism).

            … and the irony… "I don't like capitalism so I'm going to try communism."

            There are many under communist rule that would be risking annihilation of self and family if they dared challenge communist rule.

            • nfr on 16/10/2019 - 18:57
              +5

              @[Deactivated]: It's easy to say now that communism would surely lead to an even bigger shit hole. But at the time, even the well educated were willing to give it ago, so it's probably not as obvious as you think. Anyway my point is the choice is not simply capitalism or socialism, in reality we run a hybrid system anyway. It's really a matter of how much.

              • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 19:03
                +2

                @nfr: There are still intelligent people that believe in communism.

                Intelligence does not correlate with morality.

                There are intelligent tyrants too.

                A hybrid system is what we live in. We just have to constantly fight against socialism just as we individually fight the urge to laze around all day.

                Who wouldn't want to share in everyone elses' sacrifice, risk and hardwork.

                • nomoneynoproblems on 16/10/2019 - 22:47
                  +1

                  @[Deactivated]: It's 2019 and i can't believe people are still having this debate. smh…

                  • nfr on 17/10/2019 - 01:05
                    +2

                    @nomoneynoproblems: TBH I'm more shocked that just pointing out the undesirable realities of capitalism is interpreted as supporting communism. That's such an obvious logic fail I expected an average person to do better than that.

                    Just a few days ago Roche's vice chair admitted that capitalism in its current practice is destroying the planet and we need new capitalism putting long-term interests first. I wish there were more capitalists with a balanced mind like him.

          • DeafMutePretender on 16/10/2019 - 18:32
            +7

            @nfr:

            Crony capitalism is a shit hole too

            Why do people keep migrating to Capitalist shitholes?

            • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 18:45
              +2

              @DeafMutePretender: If everywhere is a shithole, a capitalist shithole will be the hole with least shit.

              Still a shit hole. Just less shit.

              • DeafMutePretender on 16/10/2019 - 18:47
                +2

                @[Deactivated]: Can't disagree there. Show me a good non-shithole communist country (or one that doesn't have as much shit as Venezuela or Pol Pot era Cambodia etc) and I'll be the first to go there.

                • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2019 - 19:15
                  -3

                  @DeafMutePretender: I got negged.

                  There are socialist moochers amongst us. :(

                  • DeafMutePretender on 16/10/2019 - 19:19
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]:

                    us

                    I don't know who the "us" is but with respect, and just to be clear, I oppose both full blown communism and capitalism. But yes, as I said elsewhere, neggers are a cancer on any website that has them (Reddit etc).

          • snook on 17/10/2019 - 22:06

            @nfr: ahh nah, think that was a Czar thing.

      • Caped Baldy on 16/10/2019 - 15:10
        +1

        Is it nicer to cry in a mansion or a card board box?

      • digitalbargain on 16/10/2019 - 18:14
        +4

        Noam Chomsky on our version of capitalism https://youtu.be/_FHNMZbnvYU

        Basically arguing how capitalism itself makes us unhappy.. I'd posit the wealthier are unhappy too (at a deeper level) even though it may not appear they are on insta

      • Jaysful on 17/10/2019 - 13:59

        OP is this troll post?

      • SlickMick on 17/10/2019 - 17:40

        then you lose your job and take 3 years to find an entry level job paying 1/3 of your usual salary and are grateful for the opportunity.

        What fat cats are spending their money on is far from my concerns, but I also have very different life priorities than them.

      • Handsoff on 19/10/2019 - 10:21

        Him living in a luxury home is a by product of him being paid more for being more valuable to the company than you.

    • RocketSwitch on 17/10/2019 - 17:02

      You're right, most people would miss the bigger picture, but I have not survey the people. It's not how fat your wallet is, but how fat your happiness is. I may or may not have stuffed up that expression.

  • waterbottled on 16/10/2019 - 12:28
    +11

    Lmao why are you comparing yourself to your boss's boss? Focus on reaching their position by playing the same system with the cards you got instead of moping around questioning "what is the point" of "working hard" in this "sad reality" where you will "never catch up".

  • wizzy on 16/10/2019 - 12:36
    +8

    You are discounting the amount of hard work that your boss may have done in order to get to the point where he was able to purchase a property that had the potential to make those types of capital gains in the first place. Hard work includes, but is not limited to, education, working his way to the top in his career, working overtime, buying cheaper properties first and using equity to move up in the property ladder, making sensible decisions, sacrificing luxury items, sacrificing his time etc.

    • ankor on 18/10/2019 - 12:11
      +2

      Someone somewhere else has done the same thing a number of generations ago. But of course we should only focus on the now and take everyone's inheritance away from them and redistribute it via Centrelink, or through a universal basic income.

      BMW's for all! /S.

      • wizzy on 18/10/2019 - 12:31
        +1

        Excellent idea! If we all received a universal basic income from Centrelink, everyone could stop aspiring to things. It wouldn't matter anyway. Why bother being an obstetrician who spends years studying and has to deliver babies at 2am when any other job would earn you the same income? /S

      • [Deactivated] on 18/10/2019 - 14:36

        Sounds like communism..

  • abb on 16/10/2019 - 12:37
    +8

    Labour alone won't get you great wealth, but having some wealth can get you more wealth.

    Without having access to a time machine, the best you can do is cut down expenses and invest wisely. But don't cut expenses to the point where your life isn't fun - as others have mentioned, it's not all about money.

    • Changskies on 16/10/2019 - 16:26
      +5

      As they have been saying for years, income by labour (e.g. paid for work you do), will NEVER push you up the scale of richness significantly. Capital gains + passive income) are the one that differentiates b/w wealthy and rich

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join